9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 913 - SC - CustomsLevy of Anti-Dumping Duty - import of Compact Fluorescent Lamp (CFL) from the Peoples Republic of China and Hongkong - HELD THAT - The assesses appeals were allowed by the judgment reported as COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE VERSUS M/S. G.M. EXPORTS OTHERS 2015 (9) TMI 1162 - SUPREME COURT . This court noted the provisions of WTO Agreement and held that upon a harmonious conjoint reading of Customs Rules read with Section 9 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 the duty for the intervening period, when the provisional duty had lapsed could not be collected retroactively. The present appeal also needs to be allowed following the judgment in Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore Vs. G.M. Exports Others - the appeal is alllowed.
Issues involved: Imposition of anti-dumping duty on Compact Fluorescent Lamp (CFL) imported from the Peoples Republic of China and Hongkong, retroactive duty collection.
Imposition of anti-dumping duty: The judgment pertains to the imposition of anti-dumping duty on Compact Fluorescent Lamp (CFL) imported from China and Hongkong. The Kerala High Court's decision on this matter was under appeal before the Supreme Court, along with other related appeals. The Court referred to the WTO Agreement and Customs Rules, along with Section 9 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It was held that duty for the period after the provisional duty lapsed could not be collected retroactively. This principle was established in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore Vs. G.M. Exports & Others (2016) 1 SCC 91. Therefore, in line with this precedent, the present appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. Retroactive duty collection: The Supreme Court allowed the present appeal based on the judgment in Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore Vs. G.M. Exports & Others, which determined that duty could not be collected retroactively after the provisional duty period had lapsed. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and no costs were awarded. Any pending applications were also disposed of in light of this decision.
|
